From my understanding both have pros and cons. Digital gives you instant feedback, however they can be altered easier with programs such as photoshop causing them to be more questionable. A camera that uses film has negatives that can be looked at to see if the developed photo itself was altered or if something shows up in the negative as well making it a bit more solid evidence. however you have the expense of buying film and getting it developed.

Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 26 November 2009 - 09:27 AM

With the state of digital technology today anyone with Photoshop and a little time can hoax a picture to theextent experts can't detect it. Thus all digital images are suspect, even the best of them made with the best cameras. There are even programs that allow one to modify the EXIF data so that isn't reliable any more.

Film can also be hoaxed, however the expense involved generally deters most from trying. So film with negatives still maintain some level of credibility, although not 100%

So take it for what it is, no picture without colloborating evidence will ever be 100% convincing no matter what method is used.

This is one piece of equipment that goes into my "buy the best you can" category.

If your going to be shooting alot of pics, it would only be natural to have a good quality camera.
For myself, I'd go with a digital. Like aptly pointed out above, in the end, it's still only a picture.
So, I'd go with the easier method.
It's nice to have immediate access to the pics you've taken. And honestly, if you get yourself a good quality printer, and some good paper, you can make prints almost identical in quality to a print from a photo lab.
Nothing says you can't use a film camera as well. I carry a disposable 35mm camera quite often. It's a backup to the digital in case of problems, and you have the added benefit that if you can snap a shot with that AND a digital camera, and there's some anomaly in the picture, you've given yourself an additional point of view.

Buy good equipment overall, but spend a little more on what your really going to be using a good part of the time.
If pictures are your big thing, you might benefit from a better camera as well. It's alot easier to learn something that interests us than it is to learn something that doesn't.
With a better camera, you may just become a better photographer.

you won't go bankrupt with the expenses....i pay about 2 dollars to process a roll of film, then scan the pictures with a film scanner....
if you're feeling up to it you can buy the chemicals and process yourself.....i used to do it but got bored with it after a while.....

My wife is all about old school when it comes to camera's and taking pictures. She still has and uses an old Minolta from the late 70's to take pictures. The big clunky flash unit and all.
She says that it's more interactive than a digital camera.

We got our first digital camera a few years ago, and she fell in love with it. But to her, the digital camera is for taking pictures, the 35mm is for photography.

Thing is, in my research, I like all my equipment to be as easy to operate as a can opener. There's just too many bells and whistles and googaas on a film camera.